The Sheikh Petersburg Declaration:
Reformation of Islam

Recently, after much growling, grumbling and rumbling, a group of
half-Muslims, mini-Muslims, ex-Muslims and non-Muslims gathered in
St. Petersburg, Florida, USA, to exhume Islam, the only peaceful
religion on the earth.

The first questions that came to my mind are “What if all the
citizens of St. Petersburg become Muslims? Will they venerate
‘Saint’ of St. Petersburg?” Probably not! The closest name that
would replace such an un-Islamic name ought to be “Sheikh”. Perhaps
“Petersburg” will also be changed to something else.

I had to chuckle. The name of the summit, its participants, and the
gist of the declaration were shooting in different directions.
Evidently, the name of the summit was “Secular Islam Summit”, but
the well-known ex-Muslims Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan did not mind
joining the convention.

Is it not fascinating that there are so many Pundits and scholars
discussing Islam? Ironically, we don’t see any conference on
“Secular Hinduism”, “Secular Buddhism”, or “Secular Christianity”
for that matter. But there is no shortage of people who like to
reform Islam and deliver a factory fresh, brand new “Secular Islam”,
though there is no difference between “Secular Islam” and “Secular
Cannibalism”.

The declaration starts with a confident dialogue: “We are secular
Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies.” This first
sentence ends abruptly without any further explanation, giving an
impression of all participants being one of those two categories.

I have a great amount of respect for Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan
because of the bold declaration of clipping their umbilical cords
from Islam. Ibn Warraq even wrote a book, Why I Left Islam.
Apparently, they are aware of Islamic danger, and none of these
great minds should be called Secular Muslims; neither do they fit in
the Muslim society. They surely are secular persons - more
explicitly, members of mankind. However, an attempt to add their
names to any of those categories is an insult to humanity.

Then comes another dialogue that seems completely unfit for Ibn
Warraq et al.: “We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and
tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic
societies.”

Every time I hear about Islamic civilization, I feel like a tiny
gecko with its swerving long tail swirling down over my spinal cord.
Let me reread it again after excluding the word “pre-Islamic” – “We
find traditions of liberty, rationality and tolerance in the rich
histories of Islamic societies.”

History witnesses, when Islam is in action, most humanistic values -
including liberty, rationality and tolerance, which are flushed down
the toilet - err, actually buried under the desert sand. Ar-Razi,
Ibn Sina, Omar Khaym, Marr--the pioneers of the so-called golden age
of Islam--were not Muslims. Muslims flourished because those great
minds dared to shy away from Islam. Conversely, as soon as Ghazali
launched real Islam, Muslims went right back to the darkness.
History also repeats itself. Today’s attempt of secularizing Islam
may bear some fruit, but within no time the madness of Islam will be
back.

Admittedly, most parts of the declaration call for striking
solutions, but, unfortunately, some of them are unrealistic. One of
those, for instance, claims, “…reform sectarian education that
teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims.”

Now they are talking about reforming the sectarian education that
condones intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims. How is it
possible to reform Islamic education without changing the Islamic
scriptures? For Muslims, the Quran is not merely a book; it is a
divine book that explicitly teaches intolerance and hatred towards
non-Muslims. There are negligible amounts of good teaching in the
Quran, which are either overshadowed or abrogated by the violent
verses.

When a book is meant to provide guidance, it is expected that
believers of the book will blindly follow the rules. Let’s compare
the effect of another book for guidance. In 1955, Vladimir Nabokov
wrote an excellent book, Lolita. The book was immediately
banned because authorities believed it contained pornographic
descriptions and was full of a pedophile’s sexual desire.
Ironically, Humbert, the middle-aged narrator of the book who was
obsessed with his 12-year-old stepdaughter, has a striking
resemblance with the holy prophet of Islam. The only difference is
that Ayesha was not a stepdaughter of Mohammed but the daughter of
his friend. Anyway, soon Vladimir’s book gained international
attention, and it became a piece of classic literature.

What if a society decides to make Lolita their divine book
and Humbert the prophet? Though most critics agree Lolita
does not endorse pedophilia but intensely describes the dark side of
a human mind, the book does have enough material to arouse a
pedophile’s hidden desire. Hence, for its immoral values, no society
would recommend Lolita as a divinely guided book; thus, the
Quran, because of its intolerant teachings, cannot be a book of
guidance either.

The declaration further urges, “We say to Muslim believers: there
is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political
doctrine.”

I must inscribe on a gold plated plaque, “There is a noble future
for Islam”, and hang it on the wall. No doubt, I will spend the rest
of my life looking at the plaque and try to solve the puzzle.

First, let us find two Quranic verses that would assimilate the
personal faith into political doctrine. After all, in Islam, such
two concepts--“personal faith” and “political doctrine”--are
mutually inclusive.

Quran 5.003 YUSUFALI: Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead
meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been
invoked the name of other than Allah;…….

Quran 2.193 SHAKIR: And fight with them until there is no
persecution, and religion should be only for Allah,…..

Evidently, Q5:003 refers to personal faith that prohibits eating
a pig’s flesh. Muslims have the right to eat whatever they want, or
reject anything they don’t like. Furthermore, Hindus may not eat
beef, and Buddhists may live on vegetables. Such personal choices,
derived from religious convictions, do not harm anyone.

Now let us explore the next verse Q2:193, which insists that Muslims
keep fighting until Islam becomes the only religion on earth. The
verse in question is only a fraction of numerous verses that evince
intolerance and bigotry.

If Muslims are asked to limit their belief on a personal level at
porky business, they must abandon the rest of the Quran’s decree. It
is an unrealistic approach. I suppose they just cannot ignore a
major portion of the Quran. For all Muslims, practicing their own
religion is not enough; instead, they are obligated to shove Islam
in others’ throats. It is a religious conviction that all Muslims
must adhere to.

Admittedly, there are a handful of blameless verses in the Quran,
and most moderate Muslims are perching on those verses. However, all
of these verses are followed by another verse that neutralizes the
implication of the preceding verse, or another verse from a
different section exclusively eclipses its meaning. The following is
an example of how noble verses are beaten up.

002.256 YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and
believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that
never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

002.257 YUSUFALI: Allah is the Protector of those who have faith:
from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of
those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light
they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They
will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever).

All non-Muslims have heard the famous dialogue, “Let there be no
compulsion in religion.” Moderate Muslims and beard-less
contemporary Muslim scholars love to quote this verse to prove that
Islam is indeed a tolerant religion. However, if you read the
following verse, it guarantees hellfire for those who do not believe
in Allah. On one hand, Allah is campaigning so-called “no
compulsion”, and, on the other hand, he is running after
non-believers with an Olympic torch.

It is true that moderate Muslims do not carry AK-47s; neither do
they drive around with the latest Islamic invention, the “suicide
car bomb”. Most of their lives, they pray occasionally, interpret
the Quran to their liking, and keep themselves succumbed in lies.
However, when they grow older, they become more fearful of Allah’s
vengeance and the fog of lies fades away. Such epiphany drives them
to pay more attention to their scriptures and collect more rewarding
points that would be used to buy the ticket for heaven. In the U.S.,
most companies encourage consumers with a very common slogan, “More
you buy, more you save”. For instance, if a consumer buys $100 worth
of merchandise, he saves $1, but he can save $10 if $1000 is spent.
This is called Islamic logic; you spend $990 to save $10. Likewise,
Muslims spend more time, money and energy behind Islamic rituals,
and earn a fraction of rewarding points. They realize that it is not
a good idea to abide by only the porky rule of the Quran and ignore
their duty of spreading Islam. A trip to Mecca for annual pilgrimage
and an in-depth study of Islam, such as the following verse, reveal
that they must follow the whole Quran.

002.174 YUSUFALI: Those who conceal Allah's revelations in
the Book, and purchase for them a miserable profit, they swallow
into themselves naught but Fire; Allah will not address them on
the Day of Resurrection. Nor purify them: Grievous will be their
penalty.

002.085 YUSUFALI: ……. Then is it only a part of the Book that
ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the
reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in
this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to
the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye
do.

For all Muslims, the thought of Judgment Day is scary, as much as
a cat is afraid of a bucket of water. When time for the last breath
nears, Muslims become desperate to collect those extra rewarding
points, just like the frightened cat with exposed claws and bared
teeth. Hatred for other religions becomes habitual, and one may not
hesitate to fulfill the violent wishes of Allah as guided in the
Quran.

The Shaikh Petersburg declaration takes a dramatic twist in the
next sentence: “We demand the release of Islam from its captivity
to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid
strictures of orthodoxy.”

Who are those culprits? Who dared to take Islam hostage?

They must be suggesting the strict Saudi laws and the
fundamentalists who are rocking the world. Ironically, the
fundamentalists are faithful to the fundamentals of Islam, and their
actions are based on the fundamental teachings. One may wonder if it
is a crime for an economics student to learn, believe and practice
the fundamentals of economics! The so-called fundamentalists did not
invent radical Islam; neither have they inserted hate mongering
verses into the Quran.

No country is using Islam to remain in power. Iran, for instance, is
ruled by Mullahs, and it is also widely believed that they are
abusing Islam to run the country. The truth is that Islam itself is
a global political party, and the sincere members of the party
strive to uphold the political agenda. Mullahs are aware that lesser
strict Islamic laws would make them popular because humans, by
nature, love freedom. However, they implement Islamic laws because
they are obligated to Islam. In Saudi Arabia, people do many
un-Islamic events inside of their homes, but the government cannot
stray from Islamic rulings. Even so, for all real Islamic countries,
the basic Islamic scriptures such as the Quran and Ahadith are more
akin to constitutional laws. After reading the Quran, spirituality
does not bloom like a flower; rather, it injects hate in one’s mind.

On the other hand, it is the so-called moderate Muslims who are
trying to hijack the real Islam. They create their own
interpretation to make Islam look good, and blatantly lie for the
sake of survival. Indeed, a secular Islam is
always
desirable, and despite all deceiving techniques, their endeavor
could bear some fruit if it had an enduring effect. Unfortunately,
most moderate Muslims, as explained earlier, revert back to
orthodoxy, and the Muslim society sinks down in the darkness again.
Hence, an attempt to reform Islam is nothing but putting a band-aid
on a dragon.

I humbly appreciate what Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan
are doing. In comparison to such intellectual giants, I am no more
than a street person, or, at best, an illiterate ordinary man. Yet,
an ordinary man may see ordinary things that intellectuals don’t
see. Please allow me to recite a short story, although I cannot
guarantee the authenticity. No one in his right mind would challenge
Einstein’s intelligence, but there is a tale about his inability to
ignore minor things. One day, Einstein decided to make a cage for
his chicken. He indeed showed an excellent craftsmanship and made a
very nice cage. When one of his friends came to visit him on the
same afternoon and asked the reason for having two entrances on the
cage, Einstein surprisingly replied, “Don’t you see I need a bigger
door for the bigger chicken, and a smaller door for the little
ones?” Any ordinary man would realize that one big door is good
enough for both sizes, but often intellectuals perceive very simple
things in a complicated manner.

Ibn Warraq himself admits that Islam cannot be reformed. Yet, he and
others endorsed the Sheikh Petersburg declaration. Perhaps, it would
have been more appropriate and acceptable if the declaration would
have urged Muslims to leave Islam. Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan do not
belong to Muslim society; neither should they confine them in such a
tiny sphere. They essentially belong to mankind, an extended
spectrum where all humans should reside.